NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED. CHICAGO STRONG. ERISA § 502(a) LITIGATION LAWYERS
Bartolic Law handles all types of ERISA § 502(a) litigation on behalf of individuals. Michael Bartolic is widely respected by colleagues and courts for his ability to present complex issues of benefit plan interpretation in easy to comprehend frameworks. He is often asked by non-ERISA lawyers to assist in cases that involve ERISA issues. While mainly focusing on his core practice areas, Michael has an endless interest in identifying new ways to protect individuals from employers and benefit plans stripping away their rights. Some of our ERISA § 502(a) Litigation includes:
Health Plans’ Refusals to Cover Medical Expenses in Personal Injury Cases
Consulting Personal Injury and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Structure
ERISA Removal Defense (ERISA Preemption)
Assisting Employment Lawyers with ERISA Elements
Benefit Plan Overpayment Defense
ERISA CLASS ACTIONS
Michael Bartolic works on ERISA class actions on a very select basis. He currently serves as co-lead class counsel in a severance benefit plan class action representing hundreds of former employees of a multibillion-dollar company. The case originated with two individuals referred by another firm, and Michael identified it as a class action shortly after taking the case over. Michael defeated multiple attempts to deny an amendment to class status, motions to dismiss, and got the class certified on three separate legal theories.
Michael Bartolic was trained at an elite Chicago-based firm where he learned defense strategies, which he leverages to now overcome them. He is often under-estimated by large firm counterparts.
Michael Bartolic understands how complex cases often turn on the quality of discovery and can handle hotly contested disputes over the scope of discovery. He meticulously prepares for discovery disputes and has successfully compelled disclosures and discovery many times.
Ferrin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 336 F. Supp. 3d 910 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2018) (holding insurance policy’s grant of discretionary authority is void under Texas law due to the certificate being issued after the effective date of regulation, and policy renewing after the effective date, and holding Plaintiff was disabled from Any Reasonable Occupation where treating doctors certify she can sit at the occasional level, and insurer’s consultants opine Plaintiff can sit frequently, as weighing all evidence together would make capacity likely at the low end of the frequent range at best).
Bartolic Law successfully certified a class of hundreds of former employees of Northrop Grumman Corporation who were denied severance benefits due to Northrop’s choice not to deliver a memo of eligibility. The case turns on whether Northrop can simply decide whether to withhold the memo or not.
An executive with an employment agreement that provided severance in the event of termination brought a claim for breach of his employment agreement. When the employer removed to Federal Court and asserted ERISA preemption, Bartolic Law successfully demonstrated the lack of an ERISA-governed plan, allowing the matter to remand to state court where the employment lawyers could pursue much higher damages.
After a person suffered a traumatic head injury, personal injury lawyers pursued a high value claim, but the health benefit plan refused to cover medical expenses the personal injury lawyers needed to be incurred to properly demonstrate damages. They involved Bartolic Law to persuade the health plan its terms required paying the expenses, albeit subject to a lien.
ERISA APPELLATE LITIGATION
Michael Bartolic consults other lawyers who find themselves in over their heads in ERISA litigation, and can evaluate the case for appeal. Bartolic Law has success in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and is astute at identifying good issues for appeal. Even if Bartolic Law did not handle the case at the district court, we can evaluate if we can turn the case around on appeal.
Attorney Advertising. This information is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Past results and testimonials are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of the outcome of your case, and should not be construed as such. Past results cannot guarantee future performance. Any result in a single case is not meant to create an expectation of similar results in future matters because each case involves many different factors, therefore, results will differ on a case-by-case basis. By providing certain contact information herein, you are expressly authorizing the recipient of this message to contact you via the methods of communication provided.